Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,624
- 153
You mean the Tea Party's over?
All we have now are unemployed scumbags in need of a shower? (OWS)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean the Tea Party's over?
All we have now are unemployed scumbags in need of a shower? (OWS)
It sure means the "Party of Family Values" nonsense is over (at least in SC), that's for sure.
Only if you accept that a failed marriage is the same as approving of all sorts of deviancy...
Most people have been through divorces or bad relationships. It happens.
It sure means the "Party of Family Values" nonsense is over (at least in SC), that's for sure.
That nonsense will be over nationally if serial adulterer/open marriage guy runs against President Obama, whose personal 'family values' are unassailable.
Ah, so cheating on two sick wives is now "failed marriages". Why not "irreconcilable differences" between him and wife number two? He wanted an open marriage and she did not.
Newt, who has committed adultery multiple times, would like an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent me from the fundamental right to legal, civil marriage.
I, who have never cheated on my life partner, do not wish to amend the Constitution of the United States to prevent him from his "immoral behavior".
Did you know that most Americans view what he did as more "deviant" than my consenting adult relationship? True story...
(sorry, updated)
It sure means the "Party of Family Values" nonsense is over (at least in SC), that's for sure.
That nonsense will be over nationally if serial adulterer/open marriage guy runs against President Obama, whose personal 'family values' are unassailable.
Ah, so cheating on two sick wives is now "failed marriages". Why not "irreconcilable differences" between him and wife number two? He wanted an open marriage and she did not.
Well, first, you are assuming that Marrianne isn't just a bitter woman making stuff up. If this was the case, why didn't she bring it up in their divorce 12 years ago?
Second, Marriane wasn't sick and Jackie wasn't that sick. You guys have her on her deathbed pretty much. Not recovering from a benign tumor and signing papers for a divorce she wanted as much as he did.
Newt, who has committed adultery multiple times, would like an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent me from the fundamental right to legal, civil marriage.
I, who have never cheated on my life partner, do not wish to amend the Constitution of the United States to prevent him from his "immoral behavior".
But here's the thing. Every time gay marriage is brought up for a vote, it loses. Even in a place like California. People don't want to redefine marriage, and they don't want activist judges redefining it for them. Personally, I think amending the constitution on this issue would be a horrible idea and a practical impossibility.
I also think it's kind of silly for Republicans to worry about a constituency that wasn't going to vote for any Republican.
Did you know that most Americans view what he did as more "deviant" than my consenting adult relationship? True story...
(sorry, updated)
Yes, a whole lot of people disapproving of behavior they engage in....
fact is, if they were that upset about it, Clinton's career would have been over when they found out he was planting Flowers.
Do you know who won legal marriage for gays in New York? Republican donors. The Republicans have written off the black vote, the Latino vote, the gay vote and a lot of the female vote. Who they got left?
They have the right!
Do you know who won legal marriage for gays in New York? Republican donors. The Republicans have written off the black vote, the Latino vote, the gay vote and a lot of the female vote. Who they got left?
They have the right!
No, they have the far right...and the 1% who $support them.
Kinda looks that way to me.
Or is Leroy now the Tea Party darling?
if the tea party's objective was to reduce the size of government or reduce our national debt, then it's been dead since it started.
This thread reeks of fear.
So Newt pulling ahead means the Tea Party nonsense is over?
if the tea party's objective was to reduce the size of government or reduce our national debt, then it's been dead since it started.
Let's see, it began while the democrats had control of both chambers and the white house, the Democrats have lost the house but still control the senate and the white house. SO exactly what power has the tea party ever had to meet it's objectives? Or do you not understand how politics work and just want to blow more smoke out of your ass?